Suchergebnisse

Abstract
Interviewers' postinterview evaluations of respondents' performance (IEPs) are paradata, used to describe the quality of the data obtained from respondents. IEPs are driven by a combination of factors, including respondents' and interviewers' sociodemographic characteristics and what actually transpires during the interview. However, relatively few studies examine how IEPs are associated with features of the response process, including facets of the interviewer-respondent interaction and patterns of responding that index data quality. We examine whether features of the response process—various respondents' behaviors and response quality indicators—are associated with IEPs in a survey with a diverse set of respondents focused on barriers and facilitators to participating in medical research. We also examine whether there are differences in IEPs across respondents' and interviewers' sociodemographic characteristics. Our results show that both respondents' behaviors and response quality indicators predict IEPs, indicating that IEPs reflect what transpires in the interview. In addition, interviewers appear to approach the task of evaluating respondents with differing frameworks, as evidenced by the variation in IEPs attributable to interviewers and associations between IEPs and interviewers' gender. Further, IEPs were associated with respondents' education and ethnoracial identity, net of respondents' behaviors, response quality indicators, and sociodemographic characteristics of respondents and interviewers. Future research should continue to build on studies that examine the correlates of IEPs to better inform whether, when, and how to use IEPs as paradata about the quality of the data obtained.

The widespread and persistent underrepresentation of groups experiencing health disparities in research involving biospecimens is a barrier to scientific knowledge and advances in health equity. To ensure that all groups have the opportunity to participate in research and feel welcome and safe doing so, we must understand how research studies may be shaped to promote inclusion. In this study, we explored the decision to participate in hypothetical research scenarios among African American adults (n = 169) that varied on the basis of four attributes (form of consent, reason for research, institutional affiliation and race of the researcher). Findings indicate that participants were largely willing to contribute to biobanks but significantly preferred opportunities where they had control over the use of their biological samples through tiered or study-specific forms of consent. Broad consent procedures, although common and perhaps preferred by participants with high trust in researchers, may amount to an exclusionary practice.